Democracy And Priorities – The court clash over gay marriage and its impact
I enjoy the multiple televisions on display in the PJ Media newsroom because I can contrast news coverage on Fox, CNN and MSNBC. But I admit that as the day winds down, and especially amid March Madness, we drop MSNBC for ESPN. Funny thing, watching ESPN rather than MSNBC actually makes you more enlightened.
I noticed on the TVs this week that two of the three stations gave incredible prime coverage to one topic, gay marriage. This is obviously a very emotional issue, and the cable stations presented the news through an emotional prism.
My take? Marriage is between a man and a woman to support the furtherance of a society through the creation of progeny. I support the traditional family structure, though sadly that structure is being decimated in the black community. However, I also support civil unions, and one can bet that the vicious gay rights lobby will come out with its predictable vehement attacks against this statement.
But that begs a question: How does one get particular rights based upon sexual behavior? I thought John Locke first established that we all have the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and estate (property). I have been checking the Constitution a lot since January 2009, especially the Bill of Rights, because it seems that now everything is a right when most presumed rights actually are privileges.
A threat to the will of the people
This brings me to my real point about this week’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing of oral arguments in two cases about gay marriage and the ensuing media attention. America is a constitutional republic, and our political process is executed through a democratic system of electorate voting.
One case before the court is over the “constitutionality” of Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in California. The issue was presented as a referendum to the people back in 2008, and they passed it, joining other states that have voted to not allow same-sex marriage.
This is where and how the issue should be settled, as states issue marriage licenses. Do not query me about the states that previously banned interracial marriage. Race is not behavioral, so there truly is no basis for comparison. And no, I do not equate the civil rights movement to the “gay rights” movement.
The most disturbing aspect of the Proposition 8 case before court is not the issue itself. My concern is that the referendum of the people has been disregarded. The people of California voted for Proposition 8.
Now we see a special-interest group, a minority special interest group that refuses to accept the referendum of the people, seeking to have the court system legislate and overturn the will of the people. This is a clear violation of our democratic process, and a dangerous precedent is being established.
In the other case before the high court, we see a previous president (Bill Clinton) speaking against a bill (the Defense of Marriage Act) that he signed into law. This is a dangerous precedent as well, whereby a past executive undermines the rule of law.
These are the story lines we should be hearing from the media, not the overly emotional aspect that has no lasting effect upon our republic.
CONTINUE READING THE REST OF ALLEN WEST’S UPDATE BY CLICKING HERE: